Does the Constitution really give us inalienable rights that cannot be taken away?

[Ben Thomson]

We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942

Because our rights are inalienable, they can be neither bestowed nor taken by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute – they’re subject to limits and restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law.

Laws and measures that limit or restrict a right consistent with the Constitution do not ‘take away’ one’s rights.

Is that what the Japanese-Americans were told in 1942?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942

You're wrong. It's not quite that simple. It can't be done by the stroke of a pen. They did it that way for a reason.

They can if nobody stands up to stop them from doing it. We saw that very scenario last year all over the country.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They should have taken the guns away before taking the police away.

Now people know that if they surrender their guns they will be at the mercy of those who are lawless.

It's too late now.

This is a lie.

No one seeks to ‘take away’ guns or the police.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Because our rights are inalienable, they can be neither bestowed nor taken by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute – they’re subject to limits and restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law.

Laws and measures that limit or restrict a right consistent with the Constitution do not ‘take away’ one’s rights.

George Takei would disagree with you.

 

[Ben Thomson]

They should have taken the guns away before taking the police away.

Now people know that if they surrender their guns they will be at the mercy of those who are lawless.

It's too late now.

This is a lie.

No one seeks to ‘take away’ guns or the police.

It's just a scare tactic the wingers are good at..we are being 'invaded' from the southern border..babies are screaming while being pulled apart in wombs..they are coming to take your guns away..yada..yada..yada

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Our government violates our constitutional rights ALL of the time all while pretending that they're not because they're doing so in accordance with some "law" that itself is unconstitutional.

Wrong.

Acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see, for example, US v. Morrison (2000)).

The doctrine of presumed constitutionality is the courts’ deference to the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives.

If the people err and enact laws or measures repugnant to the Constitution, they are at liberty to seek relief in the courts – it’s at the point that the Supreme Court rules a law or measure to be invalid that the law or measure is in fact un-Constitutional.

Citizens should not be so reckless and irresponsible to make claims that laws are ‘un-Constitutional’ when the courts have made no such determination.

 

[Wyatt earp]

We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942

Indeed. That's why the fascists in our government want to disarm us.

Gun control is not disarmament...it's gun requlation.

Can't march armed people to the concentration camps. So, no, you are wrong. As usual.

Not wrong..gun control is just gun regulation

Gun regulation inexorably leads to gun confiscation. 100% of the time. No gun registration scheme has ever NOT then led to confiscation.

True story. But that's history. And we all know you fascists try and hide, or rewrite history.

When was the last time this country confiscated every citizen's guns??

Chicago in the late 1980s

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I wasn't given a choice in the passage of the Patriot Act, just as one example.

The PA was authorized by the representatives you elected to Congress.

You’re at liberty to petition your elected representatives to repeal the PA.

You’re at liberty to file suit in Federal court to have the PA invalidated by the courts.

 

[Wyatt earp]

They should have taken the guns away before taking the police away.

Now people know that if they surrender their guns they will be at the mercy of those who are lawless.

It's too late now.

This is a lie.

No one seeks to ‘take away’ guns or the police.

It's just a scare tactic the wingers are good at..we are being 'invaded' from the southern border..babies are screaming while being pulled apart in wombs..they are coming to take your guns away..yada..yada..yada

No it's not you ignorant clown,

 

[Wyatt earp]

They should have taken the guns away before taking the police away.

Now people know that if they surrender their guns they will be at the mercy of those who are lawless.

It's too late now.

This is a lie.

No one seeks to ‘take away’ guns or the police.

Lmao bullshit Chicago illegality took guns away asshole

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution doesn't "give" us squat. All it does is delineate the natural rights we all have, and give our elected bodies the structure and authority to defend them.

Not exactly.

Constitutional case law establishes what limits government may place on our rights and protected liberties and what limits government may not.

Government can establish time, place, and manner restrictions on our speech, for example, provided such restrictions are content-neutral – such as government preempting the press from publishing troop movements during a time of war; but government may not preempt speech critical of, or in opposition to, that war.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is that what the Japanese-Americans were told in 1942?

That acts of government might be wrong, reprehensible, or otherwise ineffective doesn’t render them un-Constitutional.

Americans of Japanese ancestry did not have their Constitutional rights violated as a fact of law when they were subject to internment camps (see Korematsu v. United States (1944)).

And don’t bother with the inane ‘sometimes the Supreme Court is wrong/Dred Scott’ fallacy – that sort of sophistry is devoid of merit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's just a scare tactic the wingers are good at..we are being 'invaded' from the southern border..babies are screaming while being pulled apart in wombs..they are coming to take your guns away..yada..yada..yada

Correct.

And actually, they aren’t very good at it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They should have taken the guns away before taking the police away.

Now people know that if they surrender their guns they will be at the mercy of those who are lawless.

It's too late now.

This is a lie.

No one seeks to ‘take away’ guns or the police.

It's just a scare tactic the wingers are good at..we are being 'invaded' from the southern border..babies are screaming while being pulled apart in wombs..they are coming to take your guns away..yada..yada..yada

No it's not you ignorant clown,

Yes, it is.

Rightwing demagoguery, fearmongering, and lies.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Our government violates our constitutional rights ALL of the time all while pretending that they're not because they're doing so in accordance with some "law" that itself is unconstitutional.

Wrong.

Acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see, for example, US v. Morrison (2000)).

The doctrine of presumed constitutionality is the courts’ deference to the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives.

If the people err and enact laws or measures repugnant to the Constitution, they are at liberty to seek relief in the courts – it’s at the point that the Supreme Court rules a law or measure to be invalid that the law or measure is in fact un-Constitutional.

Citizens should not be so reckless and irresponsible to make claims that laws are ‘un-Constitutional’ when the courts have made no such determination.

Does that make sense to you? That our government can do anything they want until the Supreme Court says otherwise? That any law they pass is by default constitutional until some entity or citizen launches an in most cases costly, and lengthy legal battle against them where the government can and does oftentimes refuse to turn over evidence in it's possession which will implicate it?

How many times has the government been wrong? How many times has it admitted that it was wrong and voluntarily paid for the harm it caused (as opposed to being ordered to by a court or other entity).

How would you feel if someone had you placed under unending surveillance based on a false premise for 1, 2 3, 5, 10, 15, years, etc? Just because the courts and current law say that it's "legal", it's still a violation of privacy and can cause undue stress on the surveillance subject if they become aware that they are under surveillance. And how do you compensate someone who had their privacy invaded for that many years and as a result of said surveillance had their life was destroyed because what the government did changed the whole trajectory of their life, even though the laws and surveillance were later ruled to be unlawful/unconstitutional?

I value your opinion on most legal and constitutional matters to the point if I had to guess I would peg you as an attorney or at least a law student, however you always being so ready to defend the powers that be because they can cite some legal text somewhere that justifies the things they do always disappoints me. The rules and restrictions that each state places on their residents when it comes to keeping and bearing arms, are infringements of the 2nd amendment, even if they are "lawful" infringements according to case law and to call them otherwise is just dishonest in my opinion and always will be.

Just because something is legal or ruled 'constitutional" doesn't mean it's right or ethical.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I wasn't given a choice in the passage of the Patriot Act, just as one example.

The PA was authorized by the representatives you elected to Congress.

You’re at liberty to petition your elected representatives to repeal the PA.

You’re at liberty to file suit in Federal court to have the PA invalidated by the courts.

Now you sound like them. And this is exactly why I became a member of the ACLU.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We all seem to think our constitutional rights are etched in stone and cannot be violated. In fact they are at the whim of politicians who can justify taking them away with a stroke of the pen. George Carlin had an opinion on that..you think your rights are inviolate. He said if you do just go to Wikipedia and in the search box type in..Japanese-Americans 1942

No, it prevents the US government (and now state govts) from doing things.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Is that what the Japanese-Americans were told in 1942?

That acts of government might be wrong, reprehensible, or otherwise ineffective doesn’t render them un-Constitutional.

Americans of Japanese ancestry did not have their Constitutional rights violated as a fact of law when they were subject to internment camps (see Korematsu v. United States (1944)).

And don’t bother with the inane ‘sometimes the Supreme Court is wrong/Dred Scott’ fallacy – that sort of sophistry is devoid of merit.

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case upholding the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military Area during World War II. The decision has widely been criticized,[1] with some scholars describing it as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry"[2] and as "a stain on American jurisprudence".[3] Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly repudiated the Korematsu decision in his majority opinion in the 2018 case of Trump v. Hawaii.[4]​

​

In the aftermath of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had issued Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, authorizing the War Department to create military areas from which any or all Americans might be excluded. Subsequently, the Western Defense Command, a United States Army military command charged with coordinating the defense of the West Coast of the United States, ordered "all persons of Japanese ancestry, including aliens and non-aliens" to relocate to internment camps. However, a 23-year-old Japanese-American man, Fred Korematsu, refused to leave the exclusion zone and instead challenged the order on the grounds that it violated the Fifth Amendment.​

​

In a majority opinion joined by five other justices, Associate Justice Hugo Black held that the need to protect against espionage by Japan outweighed the rights of Americans of Japanese descent. Black wrote that: "Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race", but rather "because the properly constituted military authorities ... decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast" during the war against Japan. Dissenting justices Frank Murphy, Robert H. Jackson, and Owen J. Roberts all criticized the exclusion as racially discriminatory; Murphy wrote that the exclusion of Japanese "falls into the ugly abyss of racism" and resembled "the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy."​

​

The Korematsu opinion was the first instance in which the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard of review to racial discrimination by the government; it is one of only a handful of cases in which the Court held that the government met that standard. Korematsu's conviction was voided by a California district court in 1983 on the grounds that Solicitor General Charles H. Fahy had suppressed a report from the Office of Naval Intelligence that held that there was no evidence that Japanese Americans were acting as spies for Japan. The Japanese-Americans who were interned were later granted reparations through the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.​

​

The case is often cited as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in modern times.[5][6]

 

[Colin norris]

westwall
Fascists in the government my arse.
There is No bill put forward wanting to disarm you. You are a liar. Piss off.

 

[Batcat]

Gun control is not disarmament...it's gun requlation.

Draconian gun regulation (Incremental style … one small step at a time.)

1) All civilian owned ”assault rifles“ are banned and must be turned in.

2) All civilian owned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are banned and must be turned in.

3) All civilian owned semi-automatic pistols are banned and must be turned in.

4) All civilian owned handguns are banned and must be turned in.

5) A citizen can own no more than one single shot rifle and one single shot or double barreled shotgun if he has a license and insurance.

A license requires a psychological examination, a background check, approval by local law enforcement and a 40 hour gun safety course. The license itself will cost $500 per firearm and be good for a period of three years.

Gun owners realize this incremental approach is being used by gun control advocates and call it “the camels nose under the tent.”